Kolkata Court March 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kirsten Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. The supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants be kept on the record. Each of the Equity Shareholders of both the Applicant Companies has given written consent to dispense with the meetings of the shareholders of the Applicant Companies for the purpose of considering and approving the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation and has also consented to the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of the Applicant No. 1 with the Applicant No.2 and their respective shareholders. The Applicant No.1 is wholly owned subsidiary of the Applicant No. 2. The Applicant no. 1 is having 2 Equity Shareholders and the Applicant No. 2 is having 4 Equity Shareholders. Both companies are closely held. 2. However a meeting has to be held of the said shareholders of the respective Applicant Companies in accordance with Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. In my opinion such meeting can be informal dispensing with all formalities. Mr. N.C. Roy Choudhury, Senior Advocate and Barrister-at-Law be appointed...
Gopal Das Bangur and ors. Vs. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Assailing the order dated 24th April, 2009 passed by the learned Trial Judge in WP No. 31 of 2009, this appeal has been preferred. The writ petitioner/appellant moved the writ application praying a direction to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to issue notices for demolishing the building concerned, which as per their contention is totally in dilapidated condition. 2. The respondent Corporation did not act. The writ application was moved. In course of hearing learned Trial Judge considered the issue in the angle that the owner of the premises intends to evict the tenants who are occupying the different floors in the concerned building. Under the statute the Kolkata Municipal Act, 1980, there is a specific provision to deal with the situation under Section 411 of the said Act which reads such: 411. Power to order removal of dangerous buildings (1) If the wall or building, or anything affixed thereto, be deemed by the Municipal ...
Manish Agarwal and ors. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. The defendant does not indicate any defence to the claim for eviction on the ground of expiry of lease by efflux of time. The defendant says a new management of the defendant has been installed at Bokaro and it is such Bokaro plant which is in possession of the suit premises. That the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit premises at the seventh floor of premises no.13, Camac Street, Calcutta-700 017 is not disputed. 2. The circumstances in which the defendant came to be in possession of the property and the documents executed between the parties have also been admitted since the statements contained in paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of the Summons have not been questioned in paragraphs 10 to 13 of the affidavit-in-opposition. The defendant does not indicate that the defendant is entitled to protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Paragraph 6(h) of the affidavit in support of the Summons claims the monthly rent to be in excess of Rs.51,000/- and a servi...
Tapas Chatterjee. Vs. Kakoli Chatterjee.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the petitioner and is directed against the order no.35 dated July 21, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, Fast Track First Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No.6 of 2007 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No.31 of 2007.2. The short fact is that the petitioner and the opposite party were married under the Special Marriage Act in July, 1988. After marriage, the parties lived together and one son was born in the wedlock. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for divorce against the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and she is contesting the said matrimonial suit. She filed an application praying for alimony at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month for herself and for her son living with her and litigation cost of Rs.30,000/-. The wife has contended that she has no income of her own while her husband earns more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge granted alimony at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per ...
Ziaul Haque. Vs. Narul Islam and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant/respondent and is directed against the order no.9 dated February 4, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Seventh Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No.625 of 2010 thereby directing for demolition of the boundary wall alleged to have been constructed by the defendant/respondent/petitioner herein. The short fact is that the plaintiffs /appellants/opposite parties instituted a suit being Title Suit No.106 of 2010 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore against the petitioner praying for pre-emption under the Mohammedan Law, injunction and other reliefs. The petitioner is contesting the said application. At the time of filing of the said suit by the plaintiffs, they filed an application for temporary injunction and the learned Trial Judge did not grant any ad interim injunction as prayed for. The plaintiffs / opposite party filed a misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No.625 of 2010 before the learned Distric...
Haridar Sarkar (Dead) and ors. Vs. Jitendranath Ghosh.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. These two applications are directed against the orders dated August 25, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Siliguri in Civil Revision No.25(S) of 2004 and orders dated June 18, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Siliguri in Misc. Judicial Case No.17 of 1994 and Misc. Judicial Case No.16 of 1994.2. Since identical questions are involved in the two matters, these two applications are disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, I am discussing the C.O. No.2462 of 2005 first. The short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 for pre-emption was filed by the petitioner against the opposite party on the ground of vicinity. The opposite party entered appearance and he is contesting the said application by filing a written objection. The petitioner filed an objection against amendment of the objection. Thereafter, on taking ...
Smt. Anima Dhar and ors. Vs. Sri Banshi Dar Ghosh.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendants / judgment debtors and is directed against the order no.15 dated July 27, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Bolpur in Misc. Case No.22 of 2009 arising out of Title Execution Case No.2 of 2007 arising out of Title Suit No.75 of 2000.2. The short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of the application is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.75 of 2000 against the petitioners for declaration of right, title and interest in the Kha schedule property and also for recovery of khas possession of the Kha schedule property and for other reliefs. While the opposite party put the decree obtained in the said suit for execution, the petitioners filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending, inter alia, that the report submitted by the learned commissioner appointed in the suit does not tally with the suit property and a...
Namita Bhattacherjee (Dead) and anr. Vs. Rajendra Prosad Gupta (Dead) ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. This application is directed against the order no.56 dated February 15, 1991 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Second Bench, Calcutta in Misc. case No.993 of 1990 arising out of the Title Execution Case No.120 of 1982. The short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that the petitioners/decree holders obtained a decree for recovery of possession against the 8 defendants in respect of the suit properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint of the title suit being Title Suit No.626 of 1979. That decree was put into execution by filing the execution application being Title Execution Case No.120 of 1982. The opposite party filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending, inter alia, that his father, Narayan Lal Gupta, died 10 years back before the institution of the suit and so the decree obtained against the 8 defendants including Narayan Lal Gupta is a nullity and the same is not executable. By the impugned o...
Rathindra Nath Kar. Vs. Jhantu Charan Bera and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the petitioner and is directed against the orders dated February 14, 2008 and March 13, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haldia in Title Suit No.235 of 1993 thereby granting the prayer for analogous hearing of this suit along with the other suit being Title Suit No.3 of 1994.2. The short fact is that the petitioner as plaintiff instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.235 of 1993 on October 7, 1993 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haldia for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the opposite party in respect of 13 decimals of land out of 52 decimals of land in R.S. Plot No.422/510, Khatian No.108/1 within Mouza-Brajanath Chawk under Police Station Haldia. The petitioner has contended that the total 52 decimals of land in the plot in suit originally belonged to one Himangshu Sekhar Maity who transferred the said land by a registered deed dated February 14, 1966 to one Bijay Kr...
Brigadier Prabir Kumar Sanyal. Vs. Mrs. Mohsena Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. The petitioner Mohsena Chowdhury wife of Colonel M.H. Chowdhury was residing at Flat No. 6 F, Block Ripples, Merlin River View, 15, Kabitirtha Sarani, Kolkata, a civil accommodation. She approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore by filing complaint case No. 3643 of 2010 against Brigadier Prabir Kumar Sanyal (now retired) under Section 441/504/506/427/500 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Alipore vide order dated May 28,2010 took cognizance of the offence and transmitted the said case to the Court of 5th Judicial Magistrate Alipore for final adjudication. Perusal of the complaint would depict that Mohsena was residing at the civil accommodation as her husband was posted at Kalimpong, after being retired from service with effect from February 28, 2009 and re-employed on March 28, 2009. During last three years of his service Colonel Chowdhury was allotted an official accommodation at Tusf View Hastings Calcutta where he over s...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »